I’ve generally been against giving AI works copyright, but this article presented what I felt were compelling arguments for why I might be wrong. What do you think?

  • SeriousBug@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yes I agree with you, but I just don’t see how getting rid of copyright laws would fix this. Copyright laws aren’t helping artists enough, so instead of fixing copyright laws we should get rid of them? What do we do instead to protect artists?

    • adderaline@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      i’m a radical, so i’d say don’t use copyright, use copyleft. make everything free. use open source software. let people listen to your music if they want to, and donate to you if they choose. make it so that the best products on every market are freely available to all people to modify and alter as they wish, and make it so the modifications must also be freely available. allow anybody anywhere to produce any medication they have the means to safely synthesize. make our culture free to use and free to participate in. the open source economy is a great model to look at, and its how we’re talking to each other right now. every piece of information can be that way, if we choose it. information scarcity is already a lie, copyright just artificially imposes antiquated notions of scarcity onto a limitless resource. its a gift economy! we freely contribute, and receive support in turn.

      • FlowVoid@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        If your job stopped paying you, and told you to rely on donations from your clients/customers, then I’m pretty sure you’d find a different job.

        • adderaline@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          its not necessarily common, but its weird to make this kind of point while using a platform that works by the exact principles i’m describing lol. open source projects are very frequently built from community support and public funding alone, and the people building them seem to be fine with their jobs.

          • FlowVoid@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            They are fine with their jobs because they have other jobs that pay them.

            Your idea would mean the end of professional musicians. Music performance would be mainly for people with lots of leisure time, something rich people would do as a hobby. Like playing polo.

            • adderaline@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              i don’t know what to tell you man. not everybody who develops open source projects for a living does it in their free time. for a lot of projects, particularly the big ones, there is full time development staff.

              but i’m sorry, the thing you’re describing, music performance being out of reach for everybody but the rich? uhh… that is how things are right now. lots of musicians are struggling to afford touring, even the very wealthy ones, and tours often don’t do much more than break even. its gotten worse in recent years, too, as large corporations monopolize venue spaces and independent artists are pushed further and further into the margins. musicians have been talking about how much the live-music industry is fucked for a long time. its almost like the problems you’re imagining would occur under a different system are exactly how it works under this one.